JUDGMENT VACATED and CASE DISMI SSED and Opinion Filed April 3, 2024 

# S

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-23-00940-CV IKECHUKWU H. OKORIE AND VI VIAN N. OKORIE, Appellants V. MDREZAUL CHOWDHURY, Appellee On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 3 Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 003-02259-2023 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Burns, Justi ce Molberg, and Justice Goldstein Opinion by Chief Justice Burns This is an appeal from the trial cour t’s judgment and order of possession in a forcible detainer lawsuit. Asserting th at the appeal is moot because appellants have vacated the property, appellee has fi led a motion to dismiss the appeal. The only issue in a forcible detainer su it is the right to immediate possession of the premises. See Olley v. HVM, L.L.C. , 449 S.W.3d 572, 575 (Tex. App.— Houston [14th Dist.] 2014, pet. denied). Unless an appella nt has a potentially meritorious claim of right to current, ac tual possession, the issue of possession and the case become moot when the appe llant is no longer in possession of the–2– premises. See Marshall v. Hous. Auth. of City of San Antonio , 198 S.W.3d 782, 787, 790 (Tex. 2006). A judgment of possessi on in such an action is not a final determination as to whether the eviction is wrongful, but merely a determination of the right to immediate possession. See id at 787

. When a party is no longer in possession of the property and cannot demons trate a meritorious claim of right to current, actual possession, the case is moot and the reviewing court must vacate the judgment and dismiss the case. See id. at 788. The record before the Court shows that appellants’ lease for the property has expired. In their response to appellee’s mo tion, appellants assert the appeal is not moot because we have not considered their claim that appellee breached the contract terms. However, we do not address the merits where, as here, appellants have not demonstrated that they have a me ritorious claim of right to current, actual possession. See id at 787

. Appellants also assert the appeal is not moot because the collateral consequences exception to the mootness doc trine applies. In order to invoke the collateral consequences excep tion, appellants must show both that a concrete disadvantage resulted from the judgment a nd that the disadvantage will persist even if the judgment is vacated and the case dismissed as moot. See id . at 789. Appellants assert they “suffered adverse consequences as a result of [appellee’s] conduct” because they incurred repair and maintenance costs of the premises. The trial court’s judgment addressed only po ssession of the property. Because the–3– judgment did not address any alleged repa ir-related damage s, any such disadvantage did not result from the judgment. See id . (concrete disadvantage must result from judgment). Accordi ngly, we conclude the collateral consequences exception to the mootne ss doctrine does not apply. Because appellants have not demonstrated the appeal is not moot, we grant appellee’s motion to the extent that we vacate the trial court’s September 15, 2023 judgment and dismiss the case. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 42.3(a); Marshall , 198 S.W.3d
at 790.

230940F.P05 /Robert D. Burns, III / ROBERT D. BURNS, III CHIEF JUSTICE–4– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT

IKECHUKWU H. OKORIE AND VIVIAN N. OKORIE, Appellants
No. 05-23-00940-CV V. MDREZAUL CHOWDHURY, Appellee On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 3, Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 003-02259- 2023. Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Burns. Justices Molberg and Goldstein participating. In accordance with this Court’s opi nion of this date, the trial court’s September 15, 2023 judgment a nd order of possession is VACATED and this case is DISMISSED

. It is ORDERED that appellee MDREZAUL CHOWDHURY recover his costs of this appeal from appellants IKECHUKWU H. OKOR IE and VIVIAN N. OKORIE and the cash deposit. After all of th e costs have been paid, the trial court clerk is ORDERED to release the balance, if any, of the cash deposit to appellants.
Judgment entered April 3, 2024